Eighth Amendment

Death Penalty for the Mentally Retarded – Atkins v. Virginia (June
20, 2002)
The Court ruled that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel
and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. A significant
number of states have concluded that death is not a suitable punishment for
a mentally retarded criminal. However, the Court said it is not so much the
number of these states that is significant but rather the consistency of
the direction of change. Additionally, even in those states that allow the
execution of mentally retarded offenders, the practice is uncommon. Further references.

First Amendment Rights (Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion)

Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 – Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (April
16, 2002)
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expanded the federal
prohibition on child pornography to include any visual depiction, including
any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image
or picture that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct, 18
U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is advertised,
promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys
the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct, §2256(8)(D). The Court ruled that §§2256(8)(B)
and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional. Further references.

Regulation of Adult Entertainment – Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (May
13, 2002)
The City of Los Angeles passed a law (§ 12.70) prohibiting adult entertainment
establishments from being within 1000 feet of each other or within 500 feet
of a religious institution, school, or public park based on a 1977 study
that concluded adult entertainment establishments are related to increased
crime rates in the surrounding area. The Court ruled that the city could
prohibit two adult entertainment establishments from being located in the
same building by relying on the findings of the 1977 study. Further references.

Child Online Protection Act – Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties
Union (May 13, 2002)
The Child Online Protection Act's (COPA) reliance on "community standards" to
determine what material would be harmful to minors does not by itself render
the statute unconstitutional. The Court, however, expressed no view as to
whether COPA suffers from substantial overbreadth under the First
Amendment for reasons other than its use of community standards, whether
the statute is unconstitutionally vague, or whether the statute survives
strict scrutiny. Further references.

School Vouchers - Zelman v. Simmons - Harris(June
27, 2002)
The Court ruled that Ohio's school voucher program, which allows parents
to use voucher money to send their child to either private or public school,
does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment. Because parents can choose to use the voucher in either form
of education, the Court said it is neutral and does not infringe on the separation
of church and state. Further
References.

The Minnesota Supreme Court adopted a canon of judicial conduct which included
a provision that prohibited a candidate for a judicial office from announc[ing]
his or her views on disputed legal or political issues." The Court ruled
that the provision is unconstitutional because it both prohibits speech based
on its content and burdens a category of speech that is at the core of First
Amendment freedomsspeech about the qualifications of candidates for
public office. Further References.

Student Drug Testing - Board of Education of Independent
School Dist. No. 92 v. Earls (June 27, 2002)
The Court ruled that the Fourth
Amendment does not prevent school districts from conducting suspicionless
drug testing of any student involved in competitive extracurricular activities.
The Court found that the testing is a reasonable means of furthering the
School Districts important interest in preventing and deterring drug
use among its schoolchildren. Further
References.

Intellectual Property

Patents – Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku
Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (May 28, 2002)
The Court overturned a U.S. Court of Appeals decision which held that when
a patentee narrows a claim to obtain a patent, the patentee surrenders all
patent protection for the amended claim element. In setting aside the decision,
the Court reaffirmed the doctrine of equivalents, which expands the scope
of a patent beyond its literal terms to embrace all equivalents to the claims
described, thereby protecting a patentee "against efforts of copyists
to evade liability for infringement by making only insubstantial changes
to a patented invention." Further references.

Securities and Exchange Commission

The SEC has consistently adopted a broad reading of SEC Rule 10(b)'s "in
connection with the purchase or sale of any security" language, and has
therefore maintained that a broker who accepts payment for securities that
he or she never intends to deliver, or who sells securities with intent to
misappropriate the proceeds has violated Rule 10(b)-5 and § 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act. The Court defers to this interpretation and holds
that a broker's misappropriation of proceeds are "in connection with" securities
sales and therefore a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act. Further
references.

Sixth Amendment Rights

Right to Counsel – Alabama v. Shelton (May
20, 2002)
The Court ruled that a suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual
deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant
was accorded the assistance of counsel in the prosecution of the crime charged. Further references.

Death Penalty – Ring v. Arizona (June 24,
2002)
The Court ruled that a jury, rather than a judge, must make a finding of "aggravating
factors" when those factors underlie a judge's choice to impose the
death penalty rather than a lesser, statutory punishment. Further references.